We’re all going to die. The seas are going to boil over. And it’s the US’s fault. That was the rabid sentiment a little over a year ago when Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord. Let me remind everyone that this wasn’t a treaty—it had not been ratified by the Senate. No, it was a little agreement signed by all the mandarins of climate change, including John Kerry, who wanted to redistribute your money to someone living in a poor country, and take their cut at the same time.
Thirteen months on from the US’s withdrawal, how does the overall health of the climate change movement look?
Well, if you take things in total, it’s looking like climate change activism may be heading into a long decline. What do I mean by that? There are three things that taken together indicate that most people are so over global warming that it isn’t even interesting anymore.
First, the big Climate lawsuit against companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil got tossed out of court. In Northern California. The home of the granola crunching, plastic bag banning, gotta have an app to track homeless poop, capitalism punishing crowd. Thrown out by a judge who was appointed by Bill Clinton.
U.S. Federal District Judge William Alsup has granted a motion by BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron to dismiss lawsuits claiming Big Oil should pay to protect the cities' residents from the impacts of climate change. These lawsuits had been brought by most of the cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, and sought to force Big Oil to pay for rising sea levels and a whole host of other things. This case had been marked by the judge asking for a seminar on climate change modeling, tough questions of the plaintiffs, and the respondents (Big Oil) using the City of San Francisco’s own words about climate change as part of their defense.
The judge didn’t totally break the back of the climate changeists, however. In his opinion, he said: "The dangers raised in the complaints are very real... But those dangers are worldwide. The problem deserves a 'political branch' solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case."
In other words, the judge said to the City of San Francisco, go try to seek your remedy through the political process, don’t waste my time.
The second major moment in the Twilight of Climate Change was quietly announced last week when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicated that the organization’s focus would shift away from climate science.
Acting Director Tim Gallaudet did a presentation to the Department of Commerce which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, plus a new area of focus. The past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” However, the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.” Finally, the new area of focus is “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
NOAA, like NASA has been the leading creator of climate change propaganda for decades. As recently as the beginning of 2018, NOAA was caught red-handed trying to erase the Big Freeze that happened over much of the country in December and January. And that’s not the first time NOAA’s been caught manipulating data sets.
One of NOAA’s jobs is to maintain the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), one of the world’s major earth surface temperature datasets. It was caught adjusting this data in 2016 in order to make early 20th century temperatures colder and recent temperatures hotter so as to give a more dramatic impression of “global warming.” In other words, NOAA reduced temperatures by 2 degrees before 1940, and raised them by 2 degrees AFTER 1940.
One of the first things you learn when you model complex systems is that if the model doesn’t fit the data, you adjust the model NOT the data.
So, good news. NOAA’s going to focus on what it should have been doing in the first place.
Finally, let’s take a look at how climate agreements like Kyoto and Paris have done at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It seems that all the EU countries that spent days and weeks pounding Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Accord, pretty much suck when it comes to holding up their end of the bargain. The environmental activist group Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe issued a report shows that 23 out of 28 EU member countries score poorly with respect to honoring their commitments under the agreement.
CAN Europe note that the E.U. adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015 and committed to pursue efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C over the pre-industrial global average temperature by 2100. Their researchers find that E.U. Member "contributions proposed at the Paris talks are nowhere close enough to keep temperature rise below this threshold." Under the Paris Agreement, the E.U. has promised a 40 percent cut in its emissions below their 1990 levels by 2030.
In its ranking of E.U. countries, CAN Europe finds that "all E.U. countries are off target: they are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal. No single E.U. country is performing sufficiently in both ambition and progress in reducing carbon emissions." This is not to say that EU countries have not cut their carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade.
Overall, according the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 report, the E.U. carbon dioxide emissions are down by 12.4 percent since 2007. Interestingly, emissions since 2014 have been going up in 14 out of the 19 larger E.U. countries listed by BP. These countries include Germany, France, Poland, Spain, and the Netherlands. For Europe as a whole carbon dioxide emissions increased by 2.5 percent in 2017.
Europe isn’t looking too good here, and that’s with the countries offering lip service to the fundamentals of the Paris Accord.
How is the US faring without being restricted by an bogus international agreement?
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue their downward trend, dropping by 15.2 percent since 2007. In 2017, they fell by 0.5 percent. Between 2005 and 2016 almost 80 percent of the reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions came from the electric power sector as coal-fired plants were closed down and utilities switched to burning lower carbon natural gas to generate electricity. This trend may change now that the EPA has done an about face on the coal industry.
Hmmm. It seems that even with all the regulations the EU has burdened industry with, it still can’t make any difference.
The Climate Change movement has entered its twilight of irrelevance. With the legal remedies being taken out of the activists’ hands, scientists at NOAA returning to the core mission, and political bodies merely giving lip service to the ideals, the long scam of climate alarmists may finally be coming to an end.